1 / 22

Agenda

ACE/GCE IPT MCCDC SEABASING CONF Robert M. Borka USMC ACE/GCE IPT Lead Mine, Amphibious, Auxiliary and Command Ships robert.borka@navy.mil 202-781-1982. Agenda. Background Phase I Phase II Phase III Way Ahead Summary. Background. LCC 19 (1) LHD 1 (4).

cree
Download Presentation

Agenda

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ACE/GCE IPT MCCDC SEABASING CONFRobert M. BorkaUSMC ACE/GCE IPT LeadMine, Amphibious, Auxiliary and Command Shipsrobert.borka@navy.mil 202-781-1982

  2. Agenda • Background • Phase I • Phase II • Phase III • Way Ahead • Summary

  3. Background LCC 19 (1) LHD 1 (4) This is damage stability! LHA 1 (3) LPD 4 (5) LSD 41 (8) LHD 5 (2) LHD 7 (1) LSD 49 (4) LPD 17 (3) Status 4 0% 68% of Amphibious Fleet in restricted stability status have future weight growth issues… • Status 1 - No Weight or KG Problems • Status 2 - Cannot Accept either Weight and/or KG Growth • Status 3 - Cannot Accept KG Growth • Status 4 - Cannot Accept Weight Growth Adding ballast does not improve ship’s stability and consumes ship displacement margin…And may impact ability to deploy full load…… Further impacting ships’ riding characteristics.

  4. USMC Aircraft and Vehicle Growth DESIGN LOADOUT NEAR TERM (2007-12) NOTIONAL FUTURE* (2012 ) M151/trlr 3000 lb M998/armr 7653 lb JLTV ~20000 lb (120) (120) (120) MEU Ground Vehicles and Equipment M35 2.5T 12580 lb MTVR w/MAS 49242 lb MTVR w/MAS 49242 lb (40) (40) (40) M48 MBT 104000 lb M1A1 135200 lb M1A1 140000 lb (4) (4) (4) AAV 52000 lb AAV7A1 51000 lb EFV 72500 lb (15) (15) (15) Ground Vehicles and Equipment up to 3x heavier MV 22 46990 lb CH 46A 13000 lb MV 22 46990 lb (12) (12) (12) MV-22 weighs almost 3x CH-46A Air Combat Element (ACE) JSF 46217 lb AV 8B 24512 lb AV 8B 24512 lb (6) (6) (6) F-35B JSF weighs almost 2x AV-8B Harrier CH53A 22900 lb CH53E 48710 lb CH53K ~55000 lb (4) (4) (4) Notional Aggregate (from above list) embarked MEU ~3553 tons 2549 tons 1227 tons Increased Weights/Density Impact Deck Strength, Ships Stability... *MCCDC CD&I SID, POE 50, NAVAIR 1.2 concurs with vehicle weights – ALL VEHICLE COUNTS NOTIONAL (Based on historical data)

  5. Phase I • ACE Logistics Footprint Study • Determined square/cube impact of 2015 Future ACE • Results dictated requirement for stability impact study • LHA/LHD Class Stability Impacts Study • LHA 1 Class will accommodate future ACE (MV-22 only) and Ground vehicles (April 2006 NSWC estimate). • Loadout within 250 Ltons of displacement limit • LHA 1 Class already has Fuel Oil Comp • LHD 1-6 must have Fuel Oil Compensation (FOC) System to accommodate future ACE and current Ground vehicles • LHD 5 FOC install in progress • LHD 7 and 8 will accommodate future ACE and current Ground vehicles • LHD 7 and 8 received FOC in new construction • Further analysis is required on all amphibswith analysis that centers on Vehicle/Equipment loadout: • Vehicle and Flight Deck strength • Ship’s stability

  6. Phase II • Conduct shipboard compatibility of MTVR with Armor System (MAS) on LSD 41/49 Class • Ramps, turntables, clearances, tiedowns • Conduct Structural analysis of vehicle decks as a result of new Marine Corps vehicles/equipment • Develop generic vehicle load envelopes • Structural analysis and integrity assessment of LSD 41/49 Class flight deck and 01 level vehicle deck • Conduct stability analysis based on 2015 ACE and GCE loadouts • Update the current ACE, GCE, and logistics loads currently utilized in stability baselines • Stability analysis based on ‘worst case’ vehicle loading as determined during structural analysis LPD 17 Class Stability Study Final Remaining Study

  7. Phase II Timeline O N D M J J A J F M A S O N D M J J A J F M A J J A S = Report completed 2009 2010 FY 2008 2007 2008 CY 2007 2009 S O N D J 1 2 3 4 Program Milestones POM 12 Submit (PMS 470) Phase I Phase I Finished ACE/GCE issue Briefed to GOFO Phase II OPNAV N85 Directed PMS470 to Fund Part 1,2 of Phase II SOWs refined and finalized PMS 470 Funded Engineering Activities NSWC-CD Development of Generic Deck Loading Tool Official Phase II Study Kickoff Meeting USMC Provide Technical Data and Loadouts NAVSSES Conduct MTVR MAS Compatibility Analysis Structural Assessment by NSWC-CD Stability Assessment by NSWC-CD LHD 1 LPD 17 LSD41/49 GO/FO Phase II Out brief Development of Ship Alteration Options Software and ShipAlt Development Refinement of Software (ICODES/FCCS) Statements of Work and Costs Development of Ship Alteration Options ROM Costs Development of POM12 Issue Sheets POM12 Submission Due

  8. Phase IIMAS Compatibility on LSD Class • Final Report Complete • Between Deck Ramps and Decks • The MAS can be stowed in all vehicle decks on LSD-41 and LSD-49 Class ships • Some height restrictions on different MAS configurations • Cranes - Heaviest vehicle AMK 36 Wrecker supportable • Turntable and Drive • The turntable assembly (LSD-41 Class ships only) supports transit/turning of the MAS • Tie-Down Fittings • A total of 8 x 70,000-lb MBS shipboard lashing assemblies are required to securely stow the MAS during storm sea conditions (Sea State 7- Beaufort/NATO Scale).

  9. Phase IIGeneric Vehicle Load Envelopes • Planning Tool “Simplified Structural Assessment Procedure” enables analyst to quickly assess ship’s deck structural adequacy of a specific deck when subjected to vehicle loads. • Developed a NAVSEA “Process Instruction”. • Plan to incorporate into Ship’s Loading Characteristics Pamphlet (SLCP) – COMNASURFORINST 4621.1 • Goal: Reduce 8 hour manual calculation process into a 5 minute task. Final Report and NAVSEA Instructions in Progress…plan to incorporate into SLCP

  10. Phase IILSD 41/49 Detailed Structural Assessment • Structural analysis and integrity assessment of LSD 41/49 Class flight deck and 01 level vehicle deck. • Final report in process • Evaluation of MEU Vehicles parked on ship • The LSD-49, 01 Level vehicle parking deck aft of FR 72 is at the lowest acceptable factor of safety (FS =1.0 for stiffener bending) when subjected to the MTVR-AMk25 vehicle load. Vehicle Library Provided by USMC…

  11. Phase IIStability studies – In Progress • Conduct stability analysis based on 2008, 2015, and 2024 MEU (ACE (2015 only) and GCE) loadout • LSD 41 Class • Prior to study, 50% of Class exceed Naval Arch limits (42, 43, 44 & 46) • 2008 & 2015 MEU load out improves stability of 42 & 44 • 2024 MEU load out pushes 42 & 44 back over Allowable KG curve. • Remaining ships of the class approaching Allowable KG curve – consume most of their KG margin w/2024 MEU • LSD 49 Class • Class appears to have enough displacement & KG margin to accommodate the 2008, 2012 & 2024 MEU load outs • PMS470/NSWC-CD Developing POM12 Stability Improvement way ahead LSD 41/49 Final Report Released…

  12. Phase IIStability studies – In Progress • Conduct stability analysis based on 2008, 2015, and 2024 MEU (ACE (2015 only) and GCE) loadout • LHD 1 Class • Five out of seven (LHD 1, 2, 5, 6 & 7) appear to have enough displacement & KG margin to accommodate the 2009, 2015, and 2024 MEU load outs, MV-22 & JSF aircraft. • LHD 3 and 4 are just above the LHD 1-4 F/O Comp Sys estimated curve. • LPD 17 Class in progress • Timeline delayed to support LSD POM12 Stability Improvement development LHD 1 Class Final Report in Development…

  13. LHD 1-4 Stability Curve

  14. LHD 5-7 Stability Curve

  15. Phase III • Funded: • Update the 2015 Future ACE Logistics Footprint Study • Unfunded: • Software Development (FY10 Developemt) • Develop capacity within ICODES to perform specific vehicle deck structural analysis • Develop ability to export vehicle specific data (location and weights) from ICODES to FCCS (Flooding Casualty Control System) software for use by ships’ DCA • Combat Cargo Survey • Perform survey on a WASP Class Ship returning from deployment to update GCE for class stability baselines Future ACE Study funded by HQMC APP June 09…

  16. Phase IIIAviation Logistics Footprint Tasks: • Review and update logistics support requirements • Develop weight, volume, and location data • Air Vehicles, Support Equipment including AWSE, AVCAL, and Mission Removable Equipment • Conduct spotting analysis of flight deck and hangar bay • Including analysis of the space required to perform major maintenance actions • Purpose: To update aviation logistics footprint of 2015 MEU ACE aboard LHA-1, LHD, LHA-6 and LPD 17 class Amphibious Assault Ships • ACE: F-35B, AV-8B, MV-22, H-53, AH-1Z, UH-1Y, and Navy MH-60S • ACE Validation required • Cost: NAVAIR 6.7.1.5 $225k • NAVAIR 4.8.1.5 105k • Conference Support 20k • TOTAL: $350k Sponsor: Robert Borka, PMS-470 NAVAIR Lead: Capt Randy Gabriel, AIR 6.7.1.5, Aviation/Ship Integration NAEC Lakehurst Lead: William Mehl, AIR 4.8.1.5, Lakehurst Spotting Room Other Major Participants Include: PEO(Ships), PMS-377, HQMC (APP), MCCDC, SURFLANT/PAC, F-35 JPO, NAVAIR PMA’S, NSWCCD • Deliverables: • Due 12 months after receipt of funding • AAS Aviation Logistics Footprint Assessment (AIR 6.7.1.5) • Physical deck layout documentation including AutoCAD recreations (AIR 4.8.1.5)

  17. Phase III Aviation Logistics Footprint • Recent schedule slip of 2 months due to delay in receipt of JSF F-35B OPLOG footprint data. • JSF F-35B data due to NAVAIR by 15 Nov 09 • Spotting Conference to be held 25-29 Jan 10 • Initial LHD 1 Class results by 5 Mar 10 • Draft report Jun 10 • Final report Aug 10 Example of Finished Spotting Conference Product Hanger Deck

  18. Path Ahead • Complete Phase II Stability Efforts • Continue with Phase III Effort • L Class ACE Logistics Footprint Assessment • Development of remaining Phase III Efforts • Data pull from ICODES to FCCS • Structure load analysis software in ICODES • Combat Cargo Survey Continuing Progress to Support our Fleet Sailors and Marines…

  19. Summary • Phase II final studies in progress • Stability Studies complete by Dec 2009 • Phase III development in work • ACE Logistics Footprint (HQMC APP funded) • Software development (ICODES/ FCCS) • Combat Cargo Survey • Continue to have open dialogue between USMC and USN on requirements Open Communication is Key to Success…

  20. Points of Contacts CAPT Mike Graham Program Manager (PMS 470) Mine, Amphibious, Auxiliary and Command Ships michael.r.graham@navy.mil 202-781-1860 Sam Samimi Deputy Program Manager (PMS 470B) Mine, Amphibious, Auxiliary and Command Ships sam.samimi@navy.mil 202-781-0830 Clay Shepherd Senior MAAC Ship Class Manager (PMS 470RC) Mine, Amphibious, Auxiliary and Command Ships clayton.shepherd@navy.mil 202-781-0853 Robert Borka LHA/LHD/Aviation Ship Manager (PMS 470RH4) Mine, Amphibious, Auxiliary and Command Ships robert.borka@navy.mil 202-781-1982

  21. BACKUP

  22. Phase IIIAviation Logistics Footprint • Reasons For Update • MV-22 Logistic Footprint Changes from 2006 Report • MRE +10,000 lbs & 2,000 ft3 • AVCAL +11,000 lbs & 1,800 ft3 • SE -10,000 lbs & -2,000 ft3 • Addition of MH-60 Armed Helo Footprint • +2,500 lbs & 200 ft3 • Loss of LHD Upper/Lower V Storage and additional MARSOC Equipment to Hangar Deck • +25 Quadcons & 38 Palcons • Changes in Weight and Cube Locations Current Study Timeline Months 1-3 • Determine ACE for each ship class • Develop and obtain endorsement of Ground Rules and Assumptions • Collect and analyze SE, MRE, IMRL requirements for all Aircraft • NAVICP AVCAL Runs for ACE Aircraft • Compile Data to support Spotting Room Analyses Months 3-6 • Conduct Spotting Room Conference • Develop Analyses/Drawings for each ship class Months 7-8 • Release Physical Deck Layouts • Develop 4 Ship Class Report Months 9-11 • Release Draft 4 Ship Class Report Months 12 • Release Final 4 Ship Class Report • Brief Report to stake holders Acceleration Option • Separate into 2 Reports • LHD Ship Class (7 months) • LHA, LHD, LHA 6, and LPD 17 (12 months) • Separate Conferences will increase costs • LHD Report would contain physical deck layout AutoCad documentation

More Related